Antarctica New Zealand is the government agency charged with carrying out New Zealand’s activities in Antarctica. They manage NZ’s presence in Antarctica, run Scott Base, support the world leading science and help protect the environment of Antarctica.

They have a seven member board appointed by the Foreign Affairs Minister. They have 27 staff based in Christchurch and from 10 to 50 staff at Scott Base.

However many staff work in both Christchurch and Scott Base. You may be an HR manager most of the year in Christchurch but also spend two to three months at Scott Base helping with operations.

The Scott Base staff are in three teams – base services, engineering, and programme support. People can do multiple roles. For example the Winter Base Leader was also the domestic staffer (cleaner/chef’s assistant). She has a PhD but there isn’t much science over winter so she takes up the domestic role.

Their budget is $16 million a year of which most goes on operating costs such as $900,000 on flying within Antarctica, $680,000 on fuel, $435,000 on data/comms link and $202,000 on food.

NZARI is a charitable trust that partners with research agencies to support science in Antarctica, the Southern Ocean and the Sub-Antarctic.

Funding for NZARI is sought from organisations concerned with global scale connections to Antarctica and consequences of its changing environment.

There are multiple sources of funding for science projects in Antarctica – Marsden Fund, NIWA, universities, overseas Governments. None of them have a dedicated focus though on Antarctica, which is where NZARI comes in. Their aim is to:

Bring new money into the Antarctic Research sector

Help to grow the linked up research effort so that research teams can address more challenging scientific questions

Work in partnership with research organisations to facilitate the development of core scientific questions

Their Director is Gary Wilson who is the sort of head (in an informal sense) of the Antarctica scientific community. He’s been to Antarctica 25 times and a further 12 times to the Sub-antarctic.

They have an international science panel with members from the US, Australia, UK, South Korea, and Norway.

Their budget is $1.5 million a year plus they get support in kind of $1 million a year from Antarctica NZ. Major funders include the Aotearoa Foundation (set up by Julian Robertson) and Air New Zealand.

The Antarctic Heritage Trust is also a registered charity. The trustees include the Ambassadors or High Commissioners from the US, Ireland and the UK.

They do an amazing job preserving and restoring five historic huts in Antarctica. These huts are not just reminders of the great age of exploration but they are also the first human habitations on the continent. And the only remaining first habitations on any of the continent. Until they were built there was nothing here.

The five huts they preserve and restore are:

Carsten Borchgrevink’s Hut, Cape Adare (the first building on Antarctica)

Robert Falcon Scott’s Hut, Hut Point

Ernest Shackleton’s Hut, Cape Royds

Robert Falcon Scott’s Hut, Cape Evans

Hillary’s Hut, Scott Base

They get funding from the NZ Government, but also from four museums, the Norwegian Government, Christchurch Airport and the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust.

Their budget is around $3 million a year.

The care and skill that goes into preserving the old artifacts is amazing. Professionals have restored thousands and thousands of artifacts with huge skill.

mikenmild

cmm
I think this sums it up quite well:

As the only continent on Earth with no indigenous population, Antarctica belongs to no one, but is valuable for all. It holds intrinsic value as a pristine wilderness that provides an environment for many unique species. It is also instrumentally important as a regulator of Earth’s climate, a tourist destination, a potential reserve of mineral resources, and a natural science laboratory. Since the earliest explorers set foot on Antarctica a little over a century ago, the continent has been a place of scientific discovery, with benefits of Antarctic research reaching far beyond the borders of the Southern Ocean.

I would disagree with you about science needing to generate value. Science does generate value; but that’s not why we pursue it. Basic scientific research often leads in unsuspecting directions and should not be supported on the basis of presumed commercial benefits.

davidp

I’m happy with the government/taxpayer supporting some pure research. Or research that may have pay back in the distant future. We don’t NEED to know about quarks, black holes, or penguins. But I’m glad that there are people doing this research and I’m happy to pay my contribution.

Johnboy

cmm

@mikenmild:

Sorry but the research for research sake is BS.

Even if others disagree, we have the right to ask and they have the responsibility to answer. We’re the sugar daddy, we have a right to understand how the sugar is being spent and if we think it should be spent better.

We are paying for DPFs trip. He has the obligation to generate some value for that. In this case I believe part of the value DPF can generate is to ask some questions about the value the work is creating.

Lincoln Universities research into pollinating insects. I understand that. It is potentially worth billions to us and the cost is low.

I really think fly fishing in NZ hasn’t been researched well enough yet. Maybe the tax payer should provide me with a life long fishing trip. Lots of science could come out of that, but likely not much value.

simonway

I’m imagining cmm back in the ’50s: “Not one person has been able to come up with any practical applications for these ‘LASER’ devices you seem so obsessed with. I’m ending all funding for ‘LASER’ research. Science should be used for solving real-world problems, not inventing frivolous toys of interest to no one except scientists.”

mikenmild

mikenmild

On the same topic, I found this interesting:

But basic science has long been under fire. Between 1975 and 1987, the “Golden Fleece Award” was established and bestowed upon projects they deemed “the biggest, most ridiculous or most ironic example of government spending or waste.” Often, the “winners” were Federally funded scientific research projects taken out of context and cited without explanation.

For instance, Golden Fleece Awards were given to:
• Federal grants awarded to scientists seeking to determine why rats, monkeys, and humans clench their jaws.
• A Government study on alcohol and aggression in fish and rats.
• A Government-sponsored project to investigate the mating habits of the screwworm, an agricultural pest.

It was easy to call out these examples based on title alone. But, in an ironic (yet predictable) twist, each of these projects ultimately resulted in important and useful discoveries.
• The jaw-clenching research helped NASA and the Navy address problems associated with confining humans to small spaces for extended periods in space and underwater.
• Examining the effects of alcohol on aggression in fish and rats led to scientific insights about how alcohol affects people.
• Understanding the mating habits of the screwworm led to the ultimate eradication of the pest through the use of sterile insects, saving the U.S. cattle industry approximately $20 billion.

The heyday of the Golden Fleece Award has passed, but misunderstanding of the value of basic research and its ties to valuable applications, products, and knowledge survives today.